Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. At the end of the morning sitting we encountered a guillotine motion. I am conscious that guillotine motions have a party political element, and I appreciate that it would be inappropriate to explore that now. I do not wish to question the principle, although I have objected to it in the past when I raised a point of order about the fact that we could not have a vote on each of the clauses that we had not reached. However, I appreciate that you had no choice but to do what the rules required you to do, which was to put the question on all the clauses together.
 I am mindful of the fact, Mr. Pike, that you are a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is considering the detailed workings of guillotine motions. It occurs to me that it might be worth encouraging you to tell that Committee that although the Opposition objected—we had no choice but to vote against everything, because is was a block vote—we would not necessarily have objected to all the clauses. In that case, we could make more progress, and be seen to be making more progress, by taking the clauses one at a time. It is in that spirit, rather than an attempt to reopen the generality, that I raise that point.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are not matters for me. I have to carry out the decisions of the Committee and of the House. However, the point has been made, and I am sure that other members of this Committee are also members of the Modernisation Committee. Those issues are to be reviewed by the Modernisation Committee, and in my capacity as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I know that that Committee, too, is considering the matter. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the point that he makes, although not relevant to me in my capacity as Chairman of this Committee, will be considered.Clause 12 Survey of area

Clause 12 - Survey of area

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert— 
 '( ) the historic sites and monuments of the area;'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 178, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert 
 'the historic environment of the area;'.
 Amendment No. 40, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 14, after 'those', insert 'or any other relevant'.
 Amendment No. 41, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (2)(f).
 Amendment No. 42, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(g) the principal generation of employment in the area; 
 (h) the role played by the area in the economic and social life of the nation.'.
 Amendment No. 43, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(c) the effect such changes are likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation or on the planning of such development.'.
 Amendment No. 44, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We are now moving on to part 2, which will be the Bill's Waterloo. It is horrendously confusing, with different documents, frameworks and plans, all with competing authorities, all of which must be revoked, revised or renewed. It is not just me saying that; Friends of the Earth—I do not always agree with them, but they make a good point—say of the local development framework:
''The new local planning framework proposed in the Bill is complex and costly, extremely confusing in legal terms and ineffective in generating public involvement. Local Development Frameworks will require three yearly replacement, annual reviews and continual updating.''
 We then come to the most important part: 
''The administrative burden will be huge and make effective public consultation impractical. Instead of one plan with policies and a map''—
 that is exactly what is proposed for Wales; why we have to impose all those different policies, frameworks and documents on England I cannot imagine— 
''England will have a series of documents, including core policy, action plans and statements of community involvement. These documents are intended to have differing legal weight in decision-making and may have different adoption process. It is not clear what problem the Government is trying to solve through this new framework but the result is a confusing mess. The starting point for any effective planning system is structural simplicity.''
 I have already cited Bernard Shaw in that respect. I cannot understand why the Government have come up with such a confusing system. 
 The Confederation of British Industry states: 
''The Bill sets out broad powers to revise or revoke documents. It is important that an appropriate balance is struck between the flexibility to ensure documents can be revised and kept up to date and the certainty needed by business and others to be able to plan for the longer term.''
 That is the context for the clause and the amendments. I call it a system of chaos and confusion. 
 Amendment No. 87 was suggested to us by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It would increase the profile and importance of non-statutory historic sites in local planning and, by extension, help to ensure that adequate expertise and resources would be directed towards their care and protection. I am sure that everyone on the Committee agrees with that. Those sites are important parts of our national heritage. Damage has been done to them in the past. Surely they need greater protection. If so, it is right to accept the amendment. 
 The Council for the Protection of Rural England comments: 
''Non-statutory historic sites and monuments are an irreplaceable asset to the countryside and to urban areas, contributing to the character and historical resonance of their surroundings for visitors and those who live and work there.''
 The CPRE believes 
''that the recording and protection of these sites and monuments, registered in the Sites and Monuments (SAMs) register, would benefit from statutory recognition. The relatively low importance attended to such sites and monuments has in many cases contributed to a reduction in (often already inadequate) resources allocated to their protection by local authorities.''
 If the Minister intends to resist the amendment, he will have to make a good case to show why it should not be in the Bill. At what stage will the subject I have raised be considered? 
 My hon. Friend has tabled many other amendments, but I should like in particular to discuss amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These concern matters that must be considered when the local development plan is being drawn up—or am I getting myself confused? Incidentally, perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to the local development framework, which was highly trailed in the Green Paper, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. I do not see the words ''development framework'' mentioned in the Bill. Instead, there are now to be local development schemes, local development documents and local development plan documents. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain to us precisely how those three mesh together. 
 If my understanding is correct, one could imagine a series of concentric circles. The local development scheme would be the largest, because that is the all-encompassing scheme. The local development documents would be in the next circle and finally, the local development plan documents would be the smallest circle—the kernel. If I am correct, that is a sketch of what is in the Government's mind. Quite why we need all those documents and plans, when we could have just one plan to be adopted, revised, revoked and all the other things that the clause allows for, I cannot imagine. 
 Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would insert into the Bill what might be contained in the documents. We feel that it is a key point that generation of employment in an area—its economic well-being and prosperity—should be a material matter to be considered. That is covered by the suggested new paragraph (g) that amendment No. 42 would insert in subsection (2). Our proposed new paragraph (h) would insert a reference to the role played by an area in the economic and social life of the nation. We are much more sensitive to social activity and social inclusion than we used to be. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at what stage in the development of the plans that issue will be considered. 
 Finally, amendment No. 43 would insert a new paragraph (c) in subsection (3), relating to the effect that relevant changes would be likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation, or on 
 its planning and development. It is intended to deal with those two matters together. We need a little bit more certainty. The quote that I read out from the CBI shows that businesses are concerned about the uncertainty in this area of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to show how this complex area of the Bill will work. The Bill will have failed entirely if it does not produce a faster, more comprehensive result than the previous system. 
 One of the criticisms of the present system is that structure plans, unitary development plans and local development plans take too long to produce. It would have been possible to come up with a mechanism for speeding up the preparation of those plans under the present system, but the Government have decided to rip up the entire present system and introduce an entirely new, complex one. If the Bill results in a slower, more complex, less tidy result, it will have failed. That is the real challenge. The Bill has to stand the test of time. I predict that this area of the Bill will fail and that we will shortly be returning to amend it.

Matthew Green: I shall talk about amendments Nos. 87 and 178 in particular. Broadly speaking, the amendments attempt to achieve the same thing. I prefer the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to
''the historic environment of the area'',
 to amendment No. 87, which refers to 
''the historic sites and monuments of the area''.
 I am not an expert on drafting amendments, but I think that our wording is probably better. 
 The amendments are intended to create a statutory basis for sites and monuments records. The current problem is that local authorities hold sites and monuments records voluntarily; there is no statutory duty. The records are used in the planning process; they are consulted to establish whether plans to build houses or roads will affect historic sites. There is great public interest in such matters. After all, this is the era of ''Time Team'', which involves Tony Robinson being filmed running around fields digging things up. There is much more interest than there used to be, and perhaps now is the time to put the sites and monuments records on a statutory footing. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some thought to how that might be achieved, as the amendments might not represent the route that should be chosen. 
 Sites and monuments records serve two purposes. First, they assist the planning process—that is understandable—and secondly, they provide a local archive that can be consulted by researchers and members of the public. The records serve a double purpose. The fact that they are non-statutory means that they are often under-resourced and that quality varies considerably around the country. Some local authorities maintain excellent sites and monuments records; frankly, others do not do that to the same extent. 
 Changes to the county structure and the shifting of powers to the regional level make the matter more pressing. The need to consult the records must be put into statute because the planning tier at the regional 
 level will not hold those records. There should be a requirement to check the sites and monuments records, and local authorities should have to maintain those records to a certain standard. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not necessary and that there are safeguards elsewhere, but I would like him to address the key issue of how the requirement can be introduced on a statutory basis. It may well be that the Bill is not the best way of doing that and that it could be done through regulation or some other means. However, there is a weakness in the current system and a danger, as we move towards a regional tier of planning, that that weakness might lead to problems. This is the first time since I have been involved in politics that my degree in mediaeval studies has been remotely useful, proving that if one waits long enough, anything can happen. 
 I follow the reasoning behind the other amendments. I hope that the Minister will address them. It is interesting that amendment No. 44 was not touched on. It requires the planning authority to keep under review those matters in subsections (2) and (3) rather than the word ''may''. I was half expecting the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to make more of that amendment; it is very worthy. The historic environment is key. I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will be considered, if only to ensure that he does not find himself—I am sure that he would not wish to do so—with Tony Robinson beating a path to his door and wanting to know why the Government have created a situation in which many of our historic sites could be unintentionally destroyed.

David Wilshire: I have listened carefully to the debates about the monuments and agree with what is being said. However, for the moment, I should like to move on to amendments Nos. 40 to 44. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are a pair—I think of them as the Heathrow amendments, as the Committee will hear shortly. I shall deal first with amendment No. 40. Clause 12(2)(e) details what is included and then states that
''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.
 I have no quarrel with that. It seems sensible to include considerations that will affect the list. The Government recognise at the beginning of subsection (2) what those matters include; there is no attempt to say that paragraphs (a) to (d) represent an exhaustive list of matters to be considered, it just says that they are some of them. Therefore, amendment No. 40 deals with an important point: subsection (2)(e) should say ''any other considerations that may be expected to affect those, or other relevant matters'', to make it clear that the considerations can go beyond that list. The Minister might say that that is not necessary. If he wishes to debate whether the amendment adds anything, I shall be grateful, because I think that it strengthens a weak area of the Bill. He might not believe this, but it is after lunch and I am trying to be helpful. The amendment would improve the Bill rather than weakening it. 
 Amendment No. 41 is a different matter. It seeks to delete subsection (2)(f). I know that we have discussed 
 the issue before, so I shall not rehearse the entire case. However, I shall never be happy to read that the Secretary of State is being given powers to prescribe what can be considered. So far as I am concerned, the purpose of primary legislation is for Parliament to say what is appropriate. We are debating paragraphs (a) to (d), and in a moment we shall come to two other amendments. Whatever the complexion of the Government, in the end there will be a parliamentary majority for the Bill, and that will say what should be considered. It strikes me as entirely wrong in a democracy to say that notwithstanding the fact that we have considered all sorts of facts, and notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has expressed its will about what should be considered, we shall enable the Secretary of State to say what is right and wrong. 
 Notwithstanding any of that, if the Secretary of State has powers to prescribe, he can say, ''I know that it says in the Bill that you are going to consider the size, composition and distribution of the area, but I say that you are not going to consider that because it suits my fancy.'' That is not democratic, so subsection (2)(f) should not be included. It gives powers to the Government. I tread carefully rather than use the jackboot phrase, but I think that the Minister gets a sense of where I am coming from. 
 On amendment No. 44, I appreciate that there are those who consider that anyone who would debate ''must'' and ''may'' is pedantic. I do not think that I can be accused of that. Subsection (4) states: 
''The local planning authority may also keep under review and examine matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in relation to any neighbouring area''.
 I think that it jolly well should, rather than may, if it wants to. That is important. I use the example of Heathrow airport. Other regions may take a view on aircraft noise, but they should not be told that they may consider the implications for my region of taking a hostile stance towards Heathrow airport. I think that they must. The Government are right to say that regions should be invited to consider, but should go one stage further and say that they must do so in all circumstances. Considering does not dictate what the decision will be, it simply means that regions must think about the matter. Therefore, I commend amendment No. 44 to the Government. 
 I turn to amendments Nos. 42 and 43. I shall do my level best to keep in order when referring to Heathrow airport. It serves as the best example to support my points. Amendment No. 42 would add subsection, or whatever the correct title is, (2)(g). It would ensure that the principal generation of employment was included. It is easy enough for the Government to say that subsection (2)(a) refers to the principal economic characteristics, but that does not go far enough. The principal economic characteristic of my part of what the Government want to call the south-east of England is that it has a big airport in it. The fact that that is an economic factor is not sufficient when drawing up strategic policies. It is an economic consideration that generates, at a conservative estimate, 120,000 jobs. Its power of job generation as 
 well as the characteristic of it being an airport is the example that I would use. 
 I perceive a distinction between principal economics and the economic generation of employment. I raise that because at a strategic level, the generation of employment can easily fly in the face of matters such as environmental considerations. Policies are drawn up concerning environmental protection or the protection of ancient monuments, which is relevant to the Heathrow debate on runways because listed buildings are involved. I understand why people want us to consider the heritage of the country, but when thinking about strategy we should remember that the generation of jobs is often as important as the protection of ancient monuments. I realise that that will mark me out as a philistine, and I imagine that my mailbag will become larger due to certain pressure groups.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman should not lose sight of the fact that protecting the historic environment can create jobs. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and I share the Ironbridge gorge area as part of our constituencies. About 20 or 30 years ago, people barely considered it a historic site, but it is now a world heritage site that contributes dramatically to employment in the Ironbridge area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Telford has the figures. Clearly, concern for the historic environment led to an economic rebirth in an area that was largely derelict 30 years ago, Ironbridge has become one of the most desirable places to live in. The hon. Gentleman should take account of that example.

David Wilshire: My prediction was true: I have not yet received the letters, but I have had a telling off from someone with a legitimate point of view. I do not dispute the importance of heritage, but sometimes economic and employment generation is so crucial that in some places—not Ironbridge, where jobs can be created and the heritage preserved—it takes precedence over it. In certain circumstances, decisions about aviation could lead to the closure of Heathrow airport, and if that were to happen it could put 100,000 jobs at risk. I am gently suggesting that in debates about the historic heritage and monuments around the Hounslow heath area—now the airport—a different balance might need to be struck between jobs and heritage buildings. That is not a general observation, but we must not overlook the fact that the generation of jobs per se can become the most important of all the driving forces.
 I know where I stand if I have to choose between protecting the jobs of my constituents—their future prosperity and their mortgages—and two or three listed buildings. I hope that I do not have to make that choice, but I may have to. We should not tie planners' hands behind their backs by saying that the generation of jobs should be singled out as crucial, but that consideration should be added to the list to demonstrate that, in certain circumstances, it should be placed alongside all the other factors. I go no further than that. 
 Amendment No. 42 would also add paragraph (h)—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moves on from historic sites. My amendment is designed not to make the preservation of the historic site paramount in every case, but to build a statutory basis into the Bill so that preservation becomes one of the matters that has to be considered in planning applications. Sometimes historic sites are unique: once destroyed, they can never be put back again, which is why we should consider our heritage carefully, albeit in the context of overall economic development.

David Wilshire: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that I am not shifting policy in an unfavourable direction. If he were to press his amendment about monuments to a Division, I would be delighted and would enthusiastically vote with him. I would not dissent from anything said by my hon. Friend or by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I have simply provided an example of where other considerations could be more powerful than the ancient monument. I repeat that I draw no general conclusions and that I am not setting policy in general terms. I merely flag up in proposed subsection (2)(g) that the generation of employment can be crucial in specific cases. One has only to see the London docks or visit the pool of London for a meal and drink in the evening to discover what happens when economic factors and job generation are not considered. I do not want to see Heathrow become like London docks. It is an important strategic matter that we should try to take into account.
 Amendment No. 42 would also insert proposed subsection (2)(h), whereby one of the considerations should be 
''the role played . . . in the economic and social life of the nation.''
 Let us continue to use Heathrow airport as an example. Both a strategic and a local case could be made that regional interests point in a particular direction. For example, local and regional arguments might suggest that it would be better to site runways somewhere else—whether Stansted, Gatwick or somewhere on the Kent coast. 
 In specialist, major job-creating cases, overarching national, economic and social issues often apply. It may surprise the Minister to hear me talk about social issues, as he might view social engineering as his business, but that is not necessarily right. It could be argued that in the regional context, we need only move runways, motorways or whatever somewhere else and all would be well. However, if a decision were taken, either in the regional or local interest, to put the runway somewhere else, the national argument would be that ignoring the case for Heathrow by opting for Stansted amounted to exporting jobs, opportunities and possibilities for British business to Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. In other words, in taking such decisions, the national considerations go way beyond the regional ones. 
 The purpose of adding subsection (2)(h) is to flag up that national economic and social considerations will 
 sometimes be so affected by a decision that, notwithstanding good regional and local arguments, planners must be made to consider the national good. It may be unpalatable, but it is appropriate in certain circumstances.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend adduces an interesting argument. Does he accept that one of the main reasons for the length of the terminal 5 inquiry was that the Government had not drawn up an airport strategy for the country? Would it not be better for these wider economic issues—particularly affecting airports, but also ports—to be considered in the round under a national strategy, which would avoid the sort of planning arguments that my hon. Friend mentions?

David Wilshire: One certainly could debate the Government's inability to produce a national strategy for aviation, but going down that road might be judged out of order. I agree with my hon. Friend without subscribing to his view about what happened in the terminal 5 planning inquiry. I believe that the amendment applies to what happened. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, every head-in-the-sand anti-person who wanted to say, ''No, not in my back yard'' was allowed to run rampant across the planning system, adduce all the arguments in the list and declare that everything was dreadful. The net result was that the delays to T5 caused an enormous amount of damage to my constituency's economy. I fear that we may yet discover that they have caused an enormous amount of damage to the nation's economic, social and leisure interests. The amendment flags up the overarching interests of the nation—almost underpinning a strategy, if it is there.
 As is now becoming clear, I make myself unpopular in certain quarters by arguing that. All that I shall say in my own defence is that I have espoused those views in my constituency over four elections, and I have been re-elected. I have made those comments about the economic interests of my constituency over four elections and I have never been attacked by the local Labour party, or by the local Liberal Democrats. From that I conclude that the majority of my constituents think in the same terms. That sometimes puts us at odds with all the fashionable planning arguments. 
 I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of what I am saying. If the way in which I have worded it does not appeal to him, he might like, between now and Report, to strengthen the Bill in another way and add to the list in subsection (2), which at present has paragraphs (a) to (d). The Minister should table other amendments if he will not accept mine. 
 Amendment No. 43 continues the train of thought and would add a paragraph (c) to subsection (3). Again, I want to bring in the overarching arguments of the changes involved. The amendment relates to the effect that such changes are likely to have on the area and the planning of that area. Again I use Heathrow as the example. 
 In a debate about runways, which is a hugely strategic and social issue in, say, the south-east of England, one could argue that, if there were a need for X number of additional runways, the requirement 
 could be met by putting them anywhere. One could then argue that the extra runways in the south-east region had been built—fine; that is what the Bill says. However, the changes that will follow from that decision are crucial. If one decides to put runways there, one must ask oneself what the result will be. If nothing is done to add to capacity at Heathrow, the net result will be a major decline in business at Heathrow or its closure. To develop that argument would be to try your patience, Mr. Pike, so I shall not do so, but if anybody does not accept what I say, I shall be happy to explain afterwards why the decisions on runways could have the most catastrophic effect on Heathrow. 
 It may be thought that what I am saying is unnecessary and not relevant to the Bill. It is nearly impossible to engage the public and the experts in the argument about the impact of the changes in economic terms. What will happen to the environment, noise, pollution or house prices is readily debated, but it is difficult to move the argument on to the economic effects of decisions. 
 The Bill focuses debate on the impact of change on the region. As I said earlier, my argument in support of including the nation in that is that the changes that follow decisions taken about runways in, for example, the south-east will be national changes. Indeed, they will be changes internationally. The experts who draw up the plans and try to weigh up the impact must, even at a regional and local level, ask themselves, if they want to put a runway here or there, or a motorway here or there, or whatever it may be, what the impact of such huge infrastructure projects will be on the nation. 
 In the example that I cite, a decision to undermine the success and the future of Heathrow would have the national effect of moving much of the aviation business out of the United Kingdom. That would have a major impact on other regions, on the prosperity of the country and on the public's opportunities to fly freely to wherever they wish. Therefore, amendment No. 43 would extend the criteria to be used when considering change well beyond regional issues to national issues. 
 I have focused on Heathrow purely because it is a constituency matter for me. I am conscious that a single example does not necessarily make my point. I could use other examples, but that would again try your patience, Mr. Pike, and that of the Committee. I am sure that I have said enough to explain what I am trying to achieve. I readily accept that I am not a parliamentary draftsman or a lawyer and that there could be far better ways of achieving what I want to achieve. However, I hope that we shall end up with a better Bill with some changes, because the Minister will at least have got the drift of my argument, even if he does not like the detail of it.

Sydney Chapman: A dilemma faces all of us who seek to promote, draft or approve legislation: we are trying to do two contradictory things. First, we want any measure that we wish to see on the statute book to be as simple and short as possible, so that our constituents can recognise it and accept what we are about. On the other hand, to avoid
 vagueness and creating a goldmine for lawyers, we must necessarily go into detail and complexities. The Bill is a classic example.
 I hope that you will not feel that I am straying from the issue, Mr. Pike, but I shall be brief. Let us suppose that we want to pass a law that forbids people spitting on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath. It is necessary that in that legislation we explain or define what spitting is, what the Queen's highway is and which day the Sabbath is. I hope that that is not a flippant way to put the dilemma, but makes it easy to understand. 
 Most of the amendments under discussion result from the authorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, and the more I listened to him, the more I agreed with what he is trying to do. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England has reminded us—I am speaking mainly to amendment No. 87—historic sites and monuments are non-statutory. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the recording and protection of those sites and monuments in the sites and monuments register is voluntary. I believe that it is timely now, and the Bill gives us an opportunity, to make those sites and monuments statutory. I agree completely with him on that. 
 We have a system of protecting buildings—the listed buildings system. It is worth recording that a building can qualify to be listed in a certain grade on its historic as well as its architectural merits. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that monuments can be protected. I know that gateposts can be. Therefore, the listed building concept goes wider than simple structures or buildings. 
 I agree with the CPRE that it would be timely if the Bill gave a statutory basis to historical sites and monuments. The first example of a cast iron bridge in the world at Ironbridge must surely be listed, but the hon. Member for Ludlow is right to say that it must be seen in the context of its site. 
 I would also like to draw attention amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The two paragraphs in amendment No. 42, which my hon. Friend also tabled, should be added to paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2). That would be eminently sensible. The Minister might say that there is a limit to the number of things that we can include—I have some sympathy with that view—and he may think that paragraph (e) will cover everything. It says: 
''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.
 Most of what I was going to say has been said by previous speakers, but I wanted to ask whether there is a need for paragraph (f). The Government have to trust local planning authorities to decide what is important, significant and germane in their area. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State needs subsection (2)(f) to be included, and I would be interested if the Minister could say why that measure is necessary. 
 As I have said, although we need to spell out in more detail some of the provisions that we hope to put into the Bill, we should embrace any opportunity to make the Bill shorter, simpler and not unnecessarily long.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a clear and cogent case, as always. Does not he think that what he is saying is all the more important because the clause is basically just a statement of general principles? When we come to discuss later clauses that deal with the details of drawing up the plans, we will find that the Secretary of State has huge prescriptive powers on what those plans are to include. However, this clause just gives general principles. Surely the local planning authority should have powers to decide what general principles it will follow?

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend says it all. He is absolutely right.
 I would be interested if the Minister could say why the paragraph (f) is necessary.

Tony McNulty: Opposition Members have been ever so slightly timid, and have almost apologised for some of the examples that they have used in development of their arguments. I do not think that any of the examples were remotely out of place or irrelevant. We are perhaps blessed to have the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the Committee, because Heathrow is a good example, and one that I am sure will be referred to in relation to many subjects that the Bill touches on, and it is none the worse for that. The same goes for Ironbridge, and some other examples.
 Perhaps surprisingly, I ask the Committee to resist all the amendments in the group, for reasons that I will outline. First, however, last Thursday there was talk of diktat and jackboots; today we have heard about Waterloo, chaos and confusion. Themes are clearly emerging from our sittings. I should be more than happy to present to the Committee, by way of help and guidance, a document called ''Development Plan System: Overview of Current and Proposed New System: What the Bill Does''. It is relevant to part 2 and subsequent parts and is not remotely political or partisan. It sets out as simply as possible what the Bill—including clause 12 on local surveys and subsequent clauses—does.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister may not be aware that I, for one, have that document. I suspect that it was sent to everyone, and I am grateful for that.

Peter Pike: I need not comment on that.

Tony McNulty: That is very good, because I told my adviser last Thursday to send out the document. If that will not prevent chaos and confusion in the Cotswolds, there is not much that I can do about it, in terms of seeking help.
 The Opposition Members' discussion shows that real tensions permeate through much of the Bill between a host of serious factors that local planning authorities will have to take into consideration. Those 
 factors might be economic or environmental, as we discussed on Thursday, or might have to do with historic monuments or environments. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments because, in the limited time that I have spent reading and interpreting Bills, I have discovered that, ironically, the greater the specificity in the Bill that surrounds particular duties, the less the flexibility permitted to local authorities. 
 The list in clause 12(2) is preceded by the word ''include'', so it is not meant to be definitive. It is meant to be drawn as widely as possible so that in the first instance, local planning authorities should be able to determine, within the context of the national planning framework, what to regard as important—I thought that I heard hints that the Cotswold planning authority or others were planning a unilateral declaration of independence, so that they could act completely outwith a national or regional planning framework. We will return to the subject of Heathrow when we come to clause 43, which deals with major infrastructure projects. 
 On amendments Nos. 87 and 178, the Government fully recognise the importance of historic sites and monuments, the historic environment in our national life, and our obligation to care for them—for our benefit and that of future generations. We also recognise what the hon. Member for Spelthorne meant when he mentioned the tension between the historic dimension and other considerations, not least economic development and jobs. 
 ''A Force for Our Future'', published in December 2001, is the first statement of Government policy on heritage for a generation. It stresses that the historic environment can improve quality of life for all of us through the regeneration of our towns, cities and countryside, encouraging a greater sense of community and greater prosperity. Such regeneration works in the best interests of all concerned. 
 We fully agree that historic sites and monuments should be kept under review by local planning authorities. However, we do not agree that historic sites and monuments need to be listed in the Bill. Clause 12(2)(a) requires that authorities must keep under review 
''the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics''
 of its area. 
 Clearly, the existence of historic sites and monuments form an important part of both the physical and environmental characteristics of the area. Implicit in the clause, as in the Bill in general, is the notion that the Secretary of State has implied powers—we are even discussing the implicit powers of the Secretary of State—to issue guidance. We will certainly include guidance and an update of PPG 12, not least because we need to start including statutory consultees firmly in guidance. 
 We are already on record as saying that we will make English Heritage a statutory consultee. We anticipate that counties with expertise in dealing with historic monuments and sites will also be statutory consultees. They will look after that dimension. As and when plans such as PPG 12 are re-issued we intend for 
 there to be a statutory duty for local planning authorities to consult the historic sites register.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hope that I have not interrupted the Minister's flow, but I heard him say that the county councils will be statutory consultees. Will he clarify that by telling the Committee whether that would happen only in relation to historic buildings and monuments? Of which part of the system—the local development scheme, the local development documents or the local development plan documents—will the county councils be statutory consultees?

Tony McNulty: I shall certainly return to that point. PPG12 will explicitly say that local or planning authorities have to consult the historic sites register. We intend to cover that and other matters in guidance through the revision of PPG12, which is the guidance specific to developing plans. I shall return to the consultee point, but I shall now go through the other matters.

Matthew Green: The issue that the Minister has passed over is that sites and monuments registers are currently voluntary. They are not a statutory duty of the councils and therefore they vary throughout the country in how complete they are and how well they are drawn up. One of the arguments for putting that in the Bill is to enforce some degree of statutory obligation through the system—rather than saying that it is a duty to look at the register or to consult people who might look at the register, which is effectively the arm's-length approach—so that the records become a statutory part of the planning process, which they are not at the moment.

Tony McNulty: To all intents and purposes, the three or four measures that I have outlined in terms of amendments Nos. 87 and 178 are guaranteed to be dealt with in that fashion. I resist the fixation on treating something less than seriously unless it is explicitly in the Bill. If that were the case, the 20 or 30 copies of the Bill piled before me would be one Bill. I also resist getting lost in legalistic irony, but the greater specificity there is in a Bill, the more wriggle room we will give to those who seek to abuse our environment, historic or otherwise. Such cases end up in the courts, which use definitions of what is historic, what is a monument and what is consultation.
 If we set guidelines and strengthen the statutory consultation process with groups such as English Heritage, the duty imposed on people by PPG 12 will not mean that they should consult the historic sites and monuments register if they get a minute; it will be a binding statutory duty to consult the register to see whether it is germane to any development or application. Far from wanting further to diminish the position of our historic environment, we take very seriously the concerns about it, and we seek to resolve problems. The underlying theme of the issues that I have raised on amendments Nos. 87 and 178 is also to be found in the other amendments. 
 I am loth to mention Europe, short of including in the Bill a list of impending directives or idiotic directives that may apply in 10 years. For better or worse, we live within a European framework, and that 
 is at least one of the elements implied by clause 12(2)(f), which refers to 
''such other matters as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) may direct.''
 We are concerned about achieving good flexibility at the local level, so that planning authorities can, within the national framework, respond to their circumstances through their local development documents. We want consistency throughout the system, when it starts to bed down. 
 Amendment No. 40 seeks to ensure that all relevant matters are considered which may be expected to affect the development of the local authority area or the planning of its development. I agree with the intention behind the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary. Clause 12 (1) imposes a general duty on a local planning authority to 
''keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area or the planning of its development.''
 That can include matters that do not directly affect the development of an area or its planning, but which can affect a matter that does affect that development or its planning. Therefore, it is unnecessary to set out separately a requirement to keep under review ''any other relevant matters'' because that is already encompassed in the general duty. 
 I am a legislator—for good or bad—and I am not a lawyer, but I believe that specificity further weakens a general duty. If a general duty is defined broadly and it is subsequently interpreted in a range of ways on one's own terms, as the relevant aspect of public policy is implemented, that is far better than having a definitive statement in a Bill that is loaded with specificity and gives legal room to all and sundry—and we know who all and sundry are in this context. 
 Amendment No. 41 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe or direct additional matters that specifically must be kept under review; I referred to that in the European dimension. I do not understand the intention behind the amendment. Although clause 12(1) sets out a general duty, we have sought to identify particular matters that should be kept under review by a local planning authority. I am loth to say that there is nothing sinister or devious in this, but that is the case. The power is not intended to allow the Secretary of State to impose unreasonable burdens on local authorities, but rather to ensure that there is consistency. There are matters that need to change over time as circumstances change: many of them will be covered by subsection (2), but others may not, and this power seeks to ensure that they will be covered. 
 Amendment No. 42 seeks to specify two additional matters that are important, but they are encompassed in a more efficient way in the broader sweep of subsection (2)(a). 
 Amendment No. 43 would require a local planning authority to make an assessment of the possible effect of changes that the authority thinks may take place in 
 any other matter on the economic and social development of the nation or the planning of such development. It is a strange amendment, although the arguments in favour of it were made well. Local planning authorities are under a duty to plan for their area rather than for the economic and social development of the nation. As a result, their focus is local rather than national. 
 It is not for Spelthorne, Hillingdon, Hounslow or any of other Heathrow-focused authority to seek to determine how national aviation policy, or any other national policy, is to be implemented or to seek to prejudge that policy. It would therefore be inappropriate for the local development documents of Spelthorne or Hillingdon to say categorically that there should be a new runway at Stansted or Gatwick in the interests of national aviation policy. 
 That would be as ludicrous as my London borough of Harrow—which is relatively close to Heathrow—suggesting that it would be in the interests of the burghers of Harrow if there were three more runways at Prestwick and one at Manchester, and that whatever Swampy says does not matter. The local focus should prevail, and although the national dimension must be taken on board, that must be done within the national framework of planning and of other matters that are germane, such as aviation policy.

David Wilshire: We are slightly at cross-purposes. The amendment does not seek to imply that the regional or local considerations of such authorities should lead them to pronounce on national policy. There is a distinction between having views on a national policy and saying that when making a local or regional policy one must take account of its national impact. There is a fundamental difference between what I hope that I have been saying and what the Minister is saying. I entirely agree with his comments on whether national policy should be made regionally.

Tony McNulty: In broad terms, that is the legal import of the amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and may or not agree with some of it, but it does not concern the thrust of the amendment, which is closer to my suggestion about Spelthorne coming up with a national aviation policy. I may be with the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the broad thrust of his argument, but what this amendment does is different, which is partly why I will resist it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister respond to my point on statutory consultees and county councils? I am sorry if I have jumped in during discussion of issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, but the Minister said, in relation to historic sites and monuments, that he will consider whether to include PPG 12 in the development plan guidance. Is the Minister planning to amend or update PPG 15, which relates to planning and the historic environment, and PPG 16, which relates to archaeology and planning? Is the current system working well? If not, does the Minister plan to update those two particular PPGs?

Tony McNulty: PPGs 15 and 16 will be updated in due course. In the planning Green Paper, we are committed to reviewing fundamentally all current PPGs. Both 15 and 16 work well. They spring from the existing PPG 12 rather than from what we are seeking to do now. Will they be updated and revised as a consequence of anything in the Bill? I suspect that the answer is no. However, plans will be developed in revised guidance, and if PPGs 15 or 16, or any other PPGs, need to be revised because of the final shape and form of the Bill, they will be.
 I will come back to the hon. Member for Cotswold's point about county councils after discussing the last amendment in the group. I do not apologise for the delay, because these points are important. What we say about surveys now, and during our discussion of the next clause, as a prelude to discussions of LDV and LVF—and I assure hon. Members that I will come back to those acronyms—is worth dwelling on. 
 Amendment No. 44 requires a local authority to 
''keep under review and examine the matters . . . in relation to any neighbouring area''
 that may affect their area. Clause 12 makes that provision discretionary, for the good reason that it may be unnecessary for the authority. For example, when a large-scale development is taking place in a neighbouring authority area, that authority may have undertaken detailed work on its likely impact. Other authorities may then have access to that work. It would therefore be a waste of resources to require an authority to undertake its own work. 
 I have already been accused of being urban-centric. Simply because I was born and brought up in a place with no town or parish councils, I have been accused of being completely ignorant about town and parish councils. I hasten to say that I am not. However, I want to pursue an urban example. 
 The Kenton road is a lovely road that separates Brent and Harrow. Brent is the transport authority. If there is any significant development on either side of the road, the authority on that side of the road will take the lead. Fairly recently, there was a major supermarket development on the Brent side. Brent and Harrow council officers worked closely together, informally, and produced detailed documents that underpinned the ability of Brent officers fully to consider the application. The councils worked together but the documents were Brent documents. That kind of work would be perfectly acceptable under clause 12. 
 If amendment No. 44 were accepted, however, the Harrow officers would have to generate documents separately and independently, because the development would clearly have an impact on their area. The road is barely the width of this room. Having compulsion rather than discretion would be inappropriate. Hon. Members will know of other cases where two, three or four local planning authorities may well work together. To require all the LPAs to carry out detailed work to see how a development would impact on their area would clearly be inappropriate. Discretion is required.

David Wilshire: On amendment No. 44, I would agree with the Minister if the word ''detailed'' were in the clause; it is not. The amendment would not require lengthy, detailed work to be done; it would just require the authority to consider the matter. If the necessary consideration were to mean reading the documents produced by Brent and saying, ''These are very wise. That is exactly what we would have done. We have considered them and we support them'', I do not think that that is excessive or unreasonable.

Tony McNulty: Far be it from me to undermine the hon. Gentleman—he has his draftmanship skills—but that is not the important thrust of the amendment. The use of the word ''must'' means that discretion is absolutely removed.
 I do not wish to return to part 1, but I must explain that county councils will be statutory consultees for revisions of RSSs, and for preparations and revisions of all development plan documents. That will be made explicit in regulations. I am mindful of the fact that I have not done this today, and I apologise to the Committee, but as soon as I can I shall produce a route map for the secondary legislation associated with the rest of part 2 and subsequent parts of the Bill, as we did for part 1. I appreciate that that is easier for people—[Interruption.] If hon. Members already have one, I may be apologising unnecessarily. We feel that many of the genuine concerns are either covered explicitly in the wording of the clause, or will be covered by revised guidance, although I accept what the hon. Member for Cotswold said.

Sydney Chapman: It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the Minister as he races ahead, but I admire the way that he is performing. I recognise that it is difficult for him to keep up with some of the points that we make in our contributions and in moving amendments.
 Amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, would leave out subsection (2)(f). I asked whether the Minister could explain why it is necessary for that to be included in the Bill. Although I do not expect him to give me an answer now, will he undertake to examine that point and consider carefully both my suggestion and my hon. Friend's amendment? Perhaps we could return to that matter on Report.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman may feel that that was the lamest of examples, but it is not for me or anyone else to prescribe, predict or indicate what the next round of European directives will bring in the next five or 10 years. That example was precisely what we had in mind. If I am able to come up with more substantive examples on, or a greater raison d'etre for, that subsection, I will happily do so, but the hon. Gentleman must understand the caveat, ''if I am able''.

David Wilshire: I could respond to what the Minister said about all the amendments that I moved, but I will not because I am conscious of the time. I am also conscious that if I were to speak about the Minister's comments on Europe in respect of amendment No. 41, I would undoubtedly stray. Before you stop me, Mr. Pike, and before I say things that the official Opposition preferred that I did not say, I will refrain
 from testing your patience, except to say that amendment No. 41 is good and ought to be accepted. I will leave it at that. I pass on amendment No. 44, except to say that I do not accept the Minister's justification for urging his colleagues to resist it.
 I return, albeit briefly, to a substantial point regarding amendment No. 43 which was not ventilated either by me or the Minister, but which is fundamental to the debate. The Minister said that having listened to me, he had some sympathy with the argument that I was developing, which was that the wording of the amendment would achieve the exact opposite. To paraphrase what he said: the wording would not achieve what my argument was seeking to adduce. If that is so, I readily accept that my amendment is defective. I happily take that because I am more than content for the Minister to say that he would be willing to consider sensible wording at a later date. Given that he said that he sympathises with my arguments, I sincerely hope that he will have taken drafting advice before we discuss the Bill on Report and have found a formula that would achieve my aim. 
 In explaining his opposition to amendment No. 43, the Minister let slip in passing his observation that the decision about where to place a runway in the south-east of England was a national, not regional, matter, and that surely we would not expect the region to make such a decision. I had not contemplated that when preparing for the debate, but I have thought about it subsequently. A decision about a runway is not something that the Government should make in isolation, just as the Minister argues that it would be wrong for the region to decide on a national issue. It is possible to argue sensibly that it is wrong for the Government to make a regional decision, except in co-operation with the region that is affected. 
 That was the first part of my thought process when I contemplated what the Minister said. We shall need to check the Bill to see whether it covers that point. If the hon. Gentleman were right, he will have reinforced my concern about the Bill. No sensible Government would make a decision about a runway that affects a region without the greatest amount of consultation and co-operation with the region concerned. At present, when the region considers a runway issue—even if it were not making the decision—it would still be bound by the Bill in the consultation exercise that it enters into. When the Government say what they think should happen, the regional input will be controlled by the Bill, which sets out what the region can consider. In a debate in which the Government are taking the lead on the whole issue of where the runway goes, the region is much more likely to become parochial and forget the national consideration. It will be debating the matter with the Government, who, it will be presumed, are taking care of national considerations, and the region will be encouraged to be become more regional parochial in its arguments. 
 Even when the region is the only the consultee, it—as well as the Government—should be required under 
 the Bill to consider the national interest. Perhaps the Minister was right to say that the matter was a national, not regional, issue, but that does not undermine the spirit of my argument.

Tony McNulty: All I said in the context of whether the amendment was appropriate to the local development documents of the local planning authority does not change the interrelations between national planning policy, aviation policy and the other elements to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Far from decisions being imposed from above in the national interest, I am loth to say, given his experience of terminal 5 and Heathrow that such decisions about local needs and impacts will be handled through a planning inquiry.

David Wilshire: I stress that I am not seeking to disagree with the Minister just for the sake of it, but he has opened up an issue that I do not have my mind around. It is relevant. Even if amendment No. 43 were defective, the hon. Gentleman has given us another reason why we should revisit the provisions of the Bill to make sure that, when the region is the consultee on issues that have the most powerful regional and local implications, the way in which the region and the local planning authority are required to respond takes into account the national interest.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend will know that one of the proposals of the prestigious Town and Country Planning Association is that there should be an England spatial plan along the lines of that in the Principality under the powers delegated to the National Assembly for Wales. Does he think that part of the problem that he is addressing might be resolved if we moved an amendment to suggest that there should be an England spatial plan?

David Wilshire: I would need notice of that question. I am having sufficient difficulty getting my mind around what the Minister has been saying, let alone that. The suggestion would open up the whole debate about a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, which would certainly have me ruled out of order. The only region other than London that England is capable of being put into is the region called England, and to that extent I accept what my hon. Friend said.
 I return to the Minister's points. I hope that he and his officials will reflect on the subject that he opened up. I shall try to give an example of what worries me about the current system. There is a debate about runways in the south-east. The choice of runways for the south-east implies that we are considering a regional issue because other regions have other runways. Under the current system in which the Government take the lead, the spectacle involving the consultation document means that every local planning authority and every county planning authority in the south-east says, ''Yes, we need it, but over there, please, not here.'' The local authorities—the districts or the counties—are not obliged to exercise their minds on the national interest. They may say simply, ''The Government are trying to do this, but we are here solely to represent the local interest against that of the nation.'' That is what worries me, and it is the issue that the Minister opened up. I am grateful to him for doing that but we will 
 have to think long and hard between now and Report about how we address it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adducing the argument on amendments Nos. 178 and 40 to 43 in such detail. I do not intend to comment further on them.
 I would like to say one thing about amendment No. 87, which relates to historic sites. I led the Minister into a little trap, which he fell into nicely, by encouraging him to issue extra guidance on historic sites. I draw his attention to his Department's document ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. Paragraph 4.57 says: 
''However, there is far too great a volume of national planning policy PPGs on their own run to a total of 852 pages. The sheer amount of guidance imposes a considerable burden on the planning system and reduces its effectiveness as a means of communicating national policy priorities.''
 I do not know whether the Minister would like to intervene and tell me whether he agrees with me. Given that the document was written by the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), perhaps the statement has been consigned to history. Perhaps the whole document has been consigned to history because paragraph 4.58 says: 
''We think that Government is prescribing too much at the national level the extent of national guidance and the degree of detail in some of it serves only to stifle regional and local flexibility. Furthermore . . . much guidance is insufficiently focused with little differentiation between statements of policy and advice on process and best practice''.
 The paragraph continues: 
''the guidance is too prescriptive. Consistency in application of national guidance is valuable but too much prescription does not allow for local circumstance.''
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has been making that point in great detail. The paragraph continues: 
''Some planning policies may be better made at regional or local level, rather than set nationally''.
 We all say amen to that. The problem is that what the Minister and, especially, the Bill say are contrary to what is said in the Green Paper, which was a consultation document that received many replies. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister, who shakes his head.

Tony McNulty: I suspect that it does not say that at all. If the hon. Gentleman reads on, the document says:
''To that end, we propose to . . . review all PPGs'',
 which I said that we would. Some we will review as a consequence of this Bill, and some as a consequence of the Green Paper. The hon. Gentleman will see at paragraph 4.61 that among the first we will look at are 15 and 16—planning and the historic environment and archaeology—to which he referred. I am still waiting for the trap I am supposed to fall into.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us keep to the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We shall wait with great interest to see whether these revised PPG are simpler and more consolidated. We will examine Hansard and what the Minister has said on every aspect of everything that we
 have discussed so far in the Bill that will be further enhanced by PPGs and RPGs. I suspect that if he follows to the letter what he has said in Committee, it will be impossible for these new consolidated PPGs to be simpler than the existing ones.

Tony McNulty: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Pike, could I point out that as and where appropriate they will be changed and changed quite starkly into broader strategic policy statements? In some cases where they are very specific and technical, such as the PPG on waste and minerals, they run to a good many pages.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a long debate. It is time that we moved on. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept any of our amendments, particularly those on the historic sites. These need to be defined in the Bill. Having said that and in the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike: It is the Chair's view under Standing Order No. 68 that we have covered this clause fairly widely. I am not minded to take a stand part debate unless it is extremely brief.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your stricture and I will do my best to be brief as I always try to do.
 It is worth bringing out the extremely important point that the Minister made almost in parenthesis. He said that the county councils would be statutory consultees in the drawing up of the RSSs, in their revision, in the drawing up of local development plans and strategies and the development plan documents. That was an important statement. I am sure that it will be greeted with some relief by those following the debate that those county councils are to be given that power. He said that it would be done by secondary legislation. 
 In view of the importance of that statement, may I urge the Minister to consider whether that should be put in the Bill? It is so important and fundamental, particularly in relation to the transition from county councils drawing up structure plans to the new plans that are envisaged by this Bill, to prevent haemorrhaging of skilled personnel from county planning departments. The Minister must ensure that that information is widely disseminated among those authorities. I should have thought that the way to do it is by considering amendments on Report or in another place to make sure that those are on the face of the Bill. 
 I have one other point to make in passing. The clause is a statement of principles. It does not have to be enshrined in any of the plans. I cannot quite see where it fits in the Bill. It is one of those things that the local planning authority has to consider but it does not have to put them into any of the plans or documents. Indeed, it is quite difficult to imagine how some of these things would be put in the local development frameworks, plans and development documents. While 
 we have had a long debate on the matter, I am still unclear how the clause links into other clauses.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be brief, Mr. Pike. I just want to say that I very much welcome the clause. It is an integral part of the Bill. The Countryside Agency describes it as a real attempt to see that planning has an integrated approach on the environment and social, economic and employment matters. For too long our planning system has been separated from those other vital measures. As the Countryside Agency says, they were pigeonholed. Although I would like to have seen the clause strengthened in accordance with our amendments, I generally welcome the principle and the policy behind it.

Tony McNulty: If I had to choose between those two characterisations of the clause, I would go with the last one. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The hon. Member for Cotswold thinks that it is principle, but nothing could be further from the truth. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet says, it is integral to all that flows from it in terms of the local development framework and local development documents. I commend the clause to the Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. As I expect you are aware, we are expecting a vote downstairs at 4 o'clock. Would this be a natural point to stop?
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Clause 13 - Survey of area: county councils

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
clause 13, page 7, line 34, leave out from 'area' in line 34 to end of line 35 and insert 
 'or the planning of its development'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 45, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. How many hon. Members constitute a quorum?

Peter Pike: Five people in front of me.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I make the quorum, then.

Peter Pike: No, there are six people in front of me.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: So if my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and I withdrew, we would not have a quorum. That would not be helpful at this stage.
 The Local Government Association suggested the amendment to us. It is intended to probe county councils' proposed role in surveys for local development purposes and to clarify what is meant by ''a county matter''. 
 The LGA says: 
''County councils currently have a duty to prepare a community strategy to set out a vision for the development of their community. Major services, such as transport, education, waste management and social services are all provided directly by county councils. The government's stated desire is for important service delivery areas to be integrated to solve complex problems and create better outcomes for local people, businesses and the environment.
In this context, a wide monitoring role is essential for the planning and development of core county council services, for the development of county community strategies and successful Local Strategic Partnerships.''
 The Government have put great weight on such strategies, and local authorities in my area have spent much time and involved many stakeholders in drawing them up. They are very useful. 
 The LGA continues: 
''County councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expert contribution and monitoring effort to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy staff, or the resources for them, do not currently exist at regional or local levels in most areas.
The LGA's view is that the government is taking unnecessary risks with county council monitoring resources and expertise by removing their wider statutory monitoring role and restricting it to purely county matters. The reality is that, under the new system, individual district councils will continue to seek county monitoring support because they might not have the resources or expertise themselves. The danger is that as a result of the government's proposed reforms, county councils will be unable to justify dedicating significant resources for this purpose.
Again, these proposals seem to be driven by the desire to seek clarity of roles in a system with unitary councils under elected regional assemblies, leaving an imperfect and inadequate set of arrangements for the areas retaining the current structure, which is most of the country.''
 As I have said before, it is important that we maintain the county strategic role during the transition, because it has been a vital part of the planning function in this country. If the message from the Committee and the Government is that the Bill will diminish and reduce the importance of that function, county councils' skill base will disappear. 
 I am critical of several things that Gloucestershire county council does, but strategic planning is not one of them. I know several of the council's strategic planning officers, and they have considerable expertise and perform an especially valuable function in my area. We have a large area of outstanding natural beauty and we have conservation areas. There are many listed buildings and minerals considerations. Two motorways run through the county, and there are rail links. It is a strategic area between the south-west and the midlands. Gloucestershire county council performs a valuable role. The amendment to probe county council functions is especially important. 
 Amendment No. 45 would remove subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) says that 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations require or (in a particular case) may direct a county council to keep under review''
 certain matters. The amendment is designed to delete centralisation by the Secretary of State yet further, because we do not think that that is necessary. Subsection (4), through good drafting, refers back to subsection (3); paragraph (a) says: 
''it is immaterial whether any development relates to a county matter''
 and paragraph (b) says: 
''if a matter which is prescribed or in respect of which the Secretary of Sate gives a direction falls within section 12(4) the county council must consult the local planning authority for the area in question.''
 I am not exactly sure what subsection (4) achieves, but no doubt the Minister will tell us. My cursory reading of it indicates that the Bill would be simplified, and the functions and powers of the county council would be more precise, without it, but the Minister will give us a better explanation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view of the amendments. He told us before we resumed our sitting that he had good news for us, so let us hope that he is going to accept amendment No. 122. That would be a first in this Committee, and a real triumph.

Tony McNulty: The amendments concern county councils' survey functions. I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully, because although I shall not go as far as he wants, I think that I can go at least half way.
 Amendment No. 122 would make two changes to subsection (1). It would delete the words 
''in so far as the development relates to a county matter''
 and insert the words 
''or the planning of its development''
 in their place. The deletion of that phrase is not acceptable. It might assist members of the Committee if I explain the intention behind subsections (1) and (2), and therefore why the words are necessary. The Bill provides for a county council survey function to underpin the continuing responsibilities of the shire counties for county matters, which are mineral and waste development, in essence. Many tried to dismiss the key functions of mineral and waste development as irrelevant during the debate that preceded this Committee, but they are important, and it is appropriate that counties continue to carry them out. 
 County councils have to keep the issues that might affect development relating to a county matter, as defined in the clause, under review for 
''so much of their area for which there is a district council''.
 As part of that duty, a county council must keep under review the matters set out in clause 12(2) and (3), as the hon. Gentleman said. A county council may also keep those matters under review in relation to a neighbouring area if they could affect the county's area. In doing that, the county must consult the appropriate local planning authority. That is important, because county councils will have a duty to prepare mineral and waste development schemes and, consequently, local development documents under those schemes. 
 With regard to the second effect that amendment No. 122 would have, there might be merit in including the words 
''or the planning of its development''
 in subsection (1). Clause 13(1) is intended to be the counterpart to clause 12(1) on local development surveys as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters, and one would expect that if those words are included in clause 12(1), which they are, they should also be included in clause 13(1). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and I confirm that I am happy to take that issue away for further consideration. I cannot, of course, accept half an amendment, and we would rather the words that the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete stayed in clause 13, but I am more than happy to ensure that the words 
''or the planning of its development''
 are included, too, as they are in the preceding and complementary clause. That, however, is the extent of the surprise that I promised the hon. Gentleman. 
 Amendment No. 45 would remove the Secretary of State's power to require a county council to keep under review matters that he specifies and to make the results of the review available to such persons as he specifies. Ironically, rather than adding in any way, shape or form to the planning functions or the planning integrity of county councils—or dealing with the real concerns about the planning skills base at that level, which I share—the hon. Gentleman's amendment, by removing the Secretary of State's ability to broaden the areas that the county council should keep under review in its survey, would have the reverse effect. It would undermine any broadening of the county council's role beyond minerals and waste. I ask him not to press that amendment—in the same spirit as I allowed the other half amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What with the earlier announcement about the county councils being statutory consultees, and the part acceptance of amendment No. 122, it seems that the Government are beginning to have second thoughts about the role of county councils, which we welcome. Will the Minister say what he has in mind for the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) on broadening the role of county councils? We have not seen the draft regulations, and it would be useful to know.

Tony McNulty: I am happy to do that. Subsections (3) and (4), which amendment No. 45 would delete, are important, for the reasons that I have outlined. They will enable the Secretary of State to make the regulations that the hon. Gentleman referred to—or in particular cases, to issue a direction to require county councils in two-tier areas to keep certain matters under review.
 Those matters will sound familiar—we are nothing if not consistent—as they are the principle physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area, the principal purposes for which land is used, the size, composition and distribution of population, and communications, transport systems and traffic. We have already discussed all those key elements, which are at the root of PPG12. 
 Subsection (4) makes it clear that that function is not confined to county matters, as would be the effect of the half accepted amendment No. 122; it also 
 imposes a duty to consult if any regulations or directions relate to matters in neighbouring areas. 
 The powers are necessary as a safeguard when counties are best placed to collect and disseminate certain types of information for their areas—for example, because of economies of scale—but when that would not otherwise occur. As I said earlier, I am happy to consider adding the suggested phrase to clause 13(1)—not least to provide consistency with clause 12(1). In essence, the elements in PPG12 are those that we would seek to use in connection with the references to the Secretary of State.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister clarify one other function in which county councils are involved, which is transport? For example, they have a considerable involvement with buses and bus routes. What role will the county council have in transport and in drawing up local transport plans?

Tony McNulty: As I have said, if the Committee rejects amendment No. 45, the broader issues of the transport system—traffic and so on—could be encompassed; the provisions would go beyond the authority's specific planning functions concerning waste and minerals. As far as I am aware, the county councils' current transport functions persist, and there is no intention to diminish their role. In view of the abundant generosity of what I have said, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments. I promise faithfully to reintroduce at least half of one of them.

David Wilshire: Some general issues in the clause go beyond the amendments, so I will not contribute to the debate on them as they would be better raised in a clause stand part debate, unless you disagree, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: I will allow a clause stand part debate, but I am mindful not only of our previous debate, but of our remaining business. The Chair must make a judgment in order to make progress, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Pike. This has been a useful and concise debate on an important clause. As half a loaf is better than none, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that he will table amendments on Report to make clause 12(1) consistent with clause 13(1) and include the words of amendment No. 122.
 Many people reading Hansard will be extremely grateful for the Government's rethinking of the powers and functions of county councils. That is especially important if it helps to retain skilled personnel in county planning departments. I accept the Minister's benevolence, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: Clause 13 is the clearest evidence we could have of a Government struggling with the concept of the county council as they embark on a fundamental review of the planning system based on their beloved artificial regions. It would be better to remove clause 13 from the Bill and start again. The Government have two realistic choices, and thus far they have been prepared to go for neither. County councils must either have a full role, or the Government should get rid of them altogether and deal with local and regional planning authorities. We can not be left with something in between, as clause 13 proposes.
 I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has teased out of the Minister an agreement to review the matter, but even with that improvement, the Bill offers a conundrum and no satisfactory answer. In the light of my practical and academic experience of local government, I can say that the role of the county council is not relevant to the proposal. If there is a role for the county council, in any shape or form, it is a national role. In areas such as Berkshire or the unlamented Avon, there are unitary authorities. I do not dissent from the Government if they are to take the regional route, but it should be perfectly possible for unitary authorities, or whatever the law may call may them—they are smallish by county council standards—to work with regional planners to develop a comprehensive and coherent regional plan. If that is possible in Berkshire, why is it not possible in Surrey? Providing a role for Surrey county council is, to put it mildly, unnecessary; but if that is what is to be done, the same role should be imposed on Berkshire county council. For those reasons, I believe that the provision is muddled; we ought to have either one thing or the other. 
 There is one good point in involving county councils: I can see a temporary role for the county council in making some sort of democratic contribution in regions that will have not elected assemblies but undemocratically appointed quangos. That could be done until the blessed day when we get rid of the Government and can abolish the regions and relieve the county councils of the role that the Bill would impose on them. 
 The Government are struggling to make councils into some sort of technical consultees. They are trying to find something for the county to do that is technical rather than mainstream. However, they will soon find that having three tiers of local government leads to chaos and they will have to do something about it. My hunch is that the county councils will go. Let us not treat councils as technical consultees: do one thing or the other. 
 The Government are entirely wrong here. I am perfectly willing to accept that a unitary authority covers too small an area to be a strategic regional planning authority. However, that is not an argument for the Bill. The regions are artificial. Rather than use the county councils as a mechanism between the small unitary authorities and the regions that the Government are trying to impose, the Government, if they wanted to act sensibly, could streamline a system in which local government could do everything 
 as a unitary body. There is no reason why local authorities should not co-operate; unitary authorities could be asked to develop a strategic plan jointly rather than have the artificial construct of the county council planning for several authorities or regional authorities planning for everybody. 
 The Government will discover when they come to enforce these provisions that regionalism and a sense of regional identity have nothing to do with service delivery. Nevertheless, the Government continue to insist through Bills such as this that service delivery is linked to a sense of regional identity. The Government are about to go backwards by imposing a second tier of local government, namely the region, on those areas lucky enough to have unitary local government at present. The Government are treating the region as a layer of local government. They will return to two tiers of local government in some places, and the Bill will enhance it; in other places, they will have three, although they have already admitted that they cannot possibly have three. 
 The role of the county council envisaged here is doomed to failure. The Government's whole philosophy is wrong, and the clause highlights their dilemma. They instinctively recognise that what they propose will not work, and they are struggling with a tier of local government. They are not prepared to do one thing or the other. I hope that one of these days, sooner rather than later, the Government will see the folly of their ways.

Matthew Green: I had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Spelthorne until he reached the end of his speech. The Government are struggling to resolve how to give power to the unelected regional chambers. In some places—for example, in Shropshire where I come from—that will create a two-tier system. How will the Government deal with that? I agree entirely that clause 13 exists to deal with a conundrum that the Government should ideally not have to deal with. Their long-term strategy is for elected government in all regions. I suspect that by the time they get to that they will have changed the boundaries and the number of regions. However, that is some years off yet. By that stage, there will also be unitary authorities. The county council—the district council in the case of Shropshire—will have gone, becoming a unitary authority. There will then be the planning system that is hoped for, though there will be an interim period that could last at least a decade.
 The clause is the Government's admission that there will be a messy period and that they need to get round it. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Spelthorne on regions. I think that regional government can be a step forward if powers are devolved down from this place, rather than up from local government.

David Wilshire: So that the hon. Gentleman does not totally caricature my argument, I tell him that I argued the case that there is no foundation for service delivery, rather than governance.

Matthew Green: I think that there is a foundation for service delivery. There is a danger of upsetting the
 Welsh and the Scots by linking them to the views of English regions. Service delivery in Scotland has benefited from the Scottish Parliament's having control over it, and the same arguably holds for the Welsh Assembly and delivery in Wales. The hon. Gentleman's argument about service delivery is wrong and will eventually be shown to be so.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is again confusing the issues that I mentioned previously. He has now introduced the concept of federalism, which also has nothing to do with service delivery.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that strong regional government means that we have a federal system in England, though he can call it what he likes. I want strong regional government in England, and I think that the Government's sympathies point in that direction, though they have not yet had the confidence to devolve powers down to the regions, rather than pull them up from the county councils and local authorities

David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is now referring to Scotland as a region or a nation?

Matthew Green: Scotland is a nation, and will probably always have stronger powers than any region of England. It has a tradition of making law. None of us would say that the regions of England should have the power to make their own criminal law. There are large variations. I do not say that identical regions are needed. There will be one anomaly: English regions will probably have tax-varying roles. The Welsh Assembly will not have similar powers, and will theoretically have fewer powers than the English regions. The Government will have to do something about that in the long run, and give the Welsh Assembly the powers that it deserves.
 I shall return to the clause, as I am sure you would like me to do, Mr. Pike. Although the hon. Member for Spelthorne and I have had our little to-ing and fro-ing about regions, I think that he hit on the right issue. The clause is about dealing with a little problem of the Government's to do with where we are now, and where they want to get to. Between now and then, things will be rather messy. I would prefer for the problem to be dealt with by not transferring powers up to the regions until there are elected regional assemblies, which would avoid the need for the clause. The Government could have had a nice tight Bill, maintaining the current system until transferring powers up to the elected regional assemblies once they are. The clause and other provisions in the Bill are necessary because the Government have chosen not to wait until there are elected regional assemblies before transferring the powers. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will be frank about that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government have produced a helpful document entitled ''Development plan system: Overview of current and proposed new system: What the bill does''. I urge the Minister to keep producing such helpful documents. He has a team of civil servants behind him, and Opposition Members need all the help that they can get.
 That document makes it clear that the survey function envisaged in clauses 12 and 13 already exists under sections 11 and 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 12 sets out the survey powers of the local planning authority, and clause 13 sets out the same powers for county councils. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the powers and functions of county councils, but the hon. Member for Ludlow was right to say that there will be a mess during the transitional period. The Bill compounds that mess; it sets out, in clause 12(2), some of the matters that the local planning authority must keep under review, but the equivalent matters for county councils are not included. 
 In his rather fast speech—I must check Hansard to see what he said—the Minister set out the functions that the county council must consider. It would have been tidier to include that information in the Bill rather than in guidance. After all, if the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to ensure consistency between the subsections (1) of the two clauses, why will he not ensure consistency between the respective subsections (2)? I am still concerned that the Bill does not make clear the functions of county councils. That will need to be done in guidance, and I hope that it can be done fairly quickly so that we can maintain the expertise available in county councils. There is a great deal to cover in the rest of this part of the Bill, so we should move on. I urge my colleagues to support the clause.

Tony McNulty: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ludlow thinks that the minerals and waste development functions of county councils are some ''little problem'' and not terribly important. He and the hon. Member for Spelthorne seem to think that the clause is just something that we have concocted to get over what has been described as a ''struggle'' with county councils, as if we said, ''Oh my God, what do we do with them while we are in the waiting room between the Bill and the establishment of English regional assemblies?'' In London, where there is substantial duality in the planning system, many boroughs—not all, although they all should have—have agreed that waste should be dealt with not at borough level, but at sub-regional level. Minerals are perhaps less of a problem in London. The notion that these functions are trifling, do not matter and will all be dealt with on a regional basis is nonsense.

Matthew Green: At no point did I say that the functions were mere trifles. Other hon. Members may have implied that, but I certainly did not. My point is that the clause has been included because of the transitional period. If we had gone through the transitional period, there would be no county councils, only a unitary structure throughout England. In the case of a unitary authority replacing the county council in Shropshire, it would continue to deal with waste and minerals, as well as taking up those things currently dealt with by the district council. I am commenting not on those powers, but on the purpose of the clause. It exists only because there will
 be a transitional period before we have elected regional assemblies.

Tony McNulty: I do not think that that is entirely the case. Let us consider London, the one area where there is that split between unitary and regional bodies. Certainly in my borough, a waste strategy could not function adequately if it were not constructed across west London, and that would be more than appropriate under any subsequent model. This is not about second-guessing the form of any subsequent legislation that may come before the House. The purpose of the provision is to do with serious planning functions that need to be carried out. If we accept that those functions must be carried out and that the county councils are the appropriate body to do that, we need surveys of the areas, as outlined in clause 13.

David Wilshire: The Minister bracketed me alongside the hon. Member for Ludlow. I should therefore like to make it clear that, on the basis that God, in his wisdom, put Spelthorne on top of gravel, I need no persuading that gravel raising is deeply emotive and important. However, that is not the point. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that it does not necessarily require Surrey county council to deal with gravel-raising issues in my constituency, because Berkshire, immediately next door, where there is no county council, seems to deal with such issues perfectly adequately through the system of unitary authorities.

Tony McNulty: That is a choice, not a function of any transitory stage between now and the advent of elected regional assemblies throughout the country. It was suggested that a group of local planning authorities should jointly produce the regional spatial strategy and that the regional dimension was not needed at all. That is absurd. As I said, we are talking about important functions, and it is more than appropriate that county councils, given their experience and expertise, should carry them out.
 Clause 13 is simply a counterpart to clause 12 as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters. I said that we would take on board the notion of planning office development. Clause 13 is very important in relation to the rest of part 2. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Local development scheme

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in
clause 14, page 8, line 13, after 'authority', insert 
 ', with where it deems appropriate the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority,'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 123, in 
clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert— 
 '( ) the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.
 No. 225, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 12, after 'authority' insert 
 'with where it deems appropriate the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority,'.

Matthew Green: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I note that, in your provisional selection, amendment No. 225 appears both in the group under clause 14 and as the lead amendment in the group under clause 17.

Peter Pike: You may not be reading the revised list, Mr. Green. Your list should have the word ''revised'' at the top. The provisional list was corrected yesterday.

Matthew Green: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Pike.
 We seek to ensure that where two-tier district and county councils remain, they should work together, where needed, to produce producing the local development scheme. We have already established that the new local development schemes go beyond land-use planning and are intended to be a sort of spatial development strategy. Local development schemes will encompass transport, education, housing, health and employment issues, and investment strategies can play into those schemes. 
 Although the two-tier structure still exists in places, the authority that delivers many functions is the county council, not the district council. It would be slightly perverse if the district council, in drawing up its local development scheme, did not consult county councils to ensure that it took their views into account. 
 The amendments would ensure that local and planning authorities at district level have regard to assistance offered by county councils in areas that affect them. That falls short of formal partnership, and I hope that the wording reflects the Government's preferred way to deal with the matter. They have often said that they do not want to formalise arrangements. We heard about the example of Brent and an adjoining London authority, which was obviously a two-tier area. I hope that the Government will like the style of the wording. It certainly suits the themes that the Minister has talked about. 
 The amendment has been worded to be future-proof. It should deal with any eventual set of circumstances concerning local authorities. As we heard from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, there has been a considerable history of change in local government. Every few decades or so, the Government, whoever they may be, decide to change the whole system. 
 The amendments would ensure that districts use county council assistance, where it makes sense, in drawing up local development schemes. The amendments are broadly along lines suggested by the Local Government Association. The hon. Member for Cotswold may mention that when he speaks to his amendment, which would achieve the same result as mine.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Clause 14 concerns the local development scheme. At the beginning of this sitting, I
 was slightly premature in launching into a description of various local development schemes, documents and plan documents. Having described them, I do not need to repeat myself, except to say that I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my understanding of the concentric circles in which the local development document encompasses local development documents, which further encompass local development plan documents. His helpful piece of paper ''Development plan system: Overview of current and proposed new system: What the Bill does'' confirms that.
 That piece of paper also confirms what I said earlier. Local development frameworks, a term widely used in the Green Paper ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', do not appear in the Bill. The piece of paper explains that the term will be used in guidance as a collective term for all LDDs, SCIs, and so on. Another form of terminology is creeping in, which will further complicate the entire process because it will be used in general guidance. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke to his amendments. I prefer my own, but I would say that, wouldn't I? I dislike his amendments for using the word ''deem''. I am always suspicious when that word appears, because it gives the local authority, the Government or the Secretary of State an almost all-encompassing power of whose meaning they can give the sole interpretation. Should a case then come to judicial review, they need merely say, ''We deemed this, or the other''. 
 I am not being unkind to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but simply telling him the facts of life. I always like clarity and simplicity, and I believe that amendment No. 123 would provide it. The hon. Gentleman himself said straightforwardly that it would clarify the powers of local planning authorities and county councils—the same old chestnut. Typically, county councils deliver 80 per cent. of local government services, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the important areas of transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment strategies. 
 It is inconceivable that when important local documents are drawn up the county council should not in practice be consulted on them. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point because it is not in the Bill. 
 Asking local planning authorities at district level to have regard to assistance offered from the county level in the same area, which is short of a formal partnership, seems to be consistent with the Bill and the Government's thinking. I would have thought the Minister would have no problem in confirming what I am saying and in accepting our amendment. I look forward with great interest to his response. I hope that this time we can get not half a loaf but a whole loaf.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman should not take what happened on clause 13 as an unhappy precedent for the rest of our proceedings. Amendment No. 224 requires the local planning authority to make use of
''the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority''
 in carrying out its duties to repair or maintain a local development scheme where it is deemed appropriate. The respective hon. Gentlemen have gone through amendments Nos. 123 and 225. The only point that emerged was that, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, amendment No. 225 is more specific to clause 17 and the statement of community involvement rather than the local development documents, but it was appropriate to place it in this group in the provisional selection. 
 I am confident that local planning authorities may wish to seek assistance from other local authorities whose areas cover part of theirs. I ask why on earth they would not do so in the context of the framework's development. I am also confident that local planning authorities will want to consult such authorities about their local development schemes before submitting a draft to the Secretary of State. 
 It is clear that they will need to do so where they are dependent on those other authorities for information and advice necessary for the preparation of the relevant local development documents; for example, in the two-tier areas, relevant survey data may be collected by the counties or there may be a need to ensure proper liaison with work on the local transport plan. We have already talked about the role county councils may play in keeping matters relevant to local planning under review. 
 Furthermore, there may be occasions where joint local development documents need to be prepared with a county council through joint committee arrangements—we will come to that matter. For all those reasons we intend to encourage such consultation. 
 The Bill makes it clear that preparing and maintaining the local development scheme is the local planning authority's responsibility. Clarity is important as it reflects the authority's responsibility for the scheme and the local development documents to be produced under it. Specifying that the local authority should obtain assistance from other authorities where deemed appropriate could blur that clarity and is hardly appropriate for legislation as opposed to guidance. 
 No value would be added in requiring a local planning authority to specify assistance in its local development scheme. The local development scheme is intended to be a project plan to be kept under review and updated as necessary. It would set out the local development documents that the local planning authority proposed to prepare, and their area and subject matter; it would also specify which of those the local planning authority proposed should be subject to statutory procedures, and which not. In the transitional period, it would show which sections of the old local plan or unitary development plan still comprised part of the development plan, and whether any of those documents were to be prepared jointly with another planning authority or authorities. 
 Finally, it would set out the planned timetable for preparing the documents. 
 Adherence to the overall scheme laid down by the local planning authority will form part of the best value assessment indicators against which the performance of the local planning authority will be measured. Local planning authorities will be required to produce an annual report on progress in preparing the local development documents against the targets set out in the scheme. The matters to be set out in the scheme are, rightly, clear and definite. It would not be appropriate for assistance from other authorities, which may of course be given informally ad hoc, to be listed in the local development scheme, and I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendments. 
 I am in a slight dilemma now, given the time; I could say much about amendment No. 225, which would make specific provision for assistance from other authorities. It relates to the statement of community involvement and although it is rightly included in this group I think that I shall keep my powder dry until we reach clause 17.

Peter Pike: Before I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, may I make it clear that only one amendment has been moved—No. 221, the lead amendment of the group?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why does the Bill, which sets out huge powers for the regional planning body and the local planning authority, not specify the powers of the county council? The Minister has been very helpful, has told us how he envisages the powers working, and has explained that they will be in guidance. However, why is that so? Why can there not be some consistency?

Tony McNulty: If nothing else, the Bill is extremely consistent in its exposition of details of what is to be, as we said right at the start of the consultation process on the planning Green Paper, a definitive two-tier system. With a two-tier system it is perfectly appropriate to develop in some detail in statute the appropriate planning and other public policy functions of the two tiers. Nevertheless, there is recognition of a continued role for county councils. Apart from waste, minerals and other matters, such as transport, much of the county council's continued role in planning functions and assistance to other regional or local planning authorities is not in the Bill, because the system is a two-tier one. More appropriately it is expanded on in regulation. That is an entirely fair way to proceed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is precisely our criticism of the Bill, which clearly is introducing not a two-tier system but one that will, until the elected regional assemblies come into being, have three tiers. The region, the county and the local authorities will be involved, and the Minister cannot get away with saying that that is a two-tier system. The huge amount of guidance and what he has said this afternoon make it clear that the counties will still have an important strategic role.

Tony McNulty: County councils will, as I have said, continue to have an important role with respect to clause 13 deliberations. Two bodies are principally
 responsible for development of the statutory policy-planning framework: the regions are responsible for the spatial strategy dimension, and the local planning authorities are responsible for the local dimension. That, to all intents and purposes, is a two-tier system, but the county council's role will continue at one level. That is not, as it was characterised by the hon. Member for Ludlow—and the hon. Member for Cotswold clearly agrees with him—being done belatedly, on the back of an envelope, with a cry of, ''Oh my God, we forgot the county councils. We'd better give them something to do.'' Serious functions will continue to be carried out by county councils, which are significant bodies with a skills base in the planning profession that should aid both the regional planning bodies and the local planning authorities. However, the system is overwhelmingly two tiered, which is why much statute deals with the top and bottom levels—the regional and local. The role of counties, which have real functions, is not an encumbrance or historical hangover but it is better to expand on their functions in regulation, circulars and guidance than to do so in the Bill. The Bill deals with the overall strategic, legal and policy framework for the future of planning in this country. In that context, we have an overwhelmingly two-tier system.
 With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: We have had a bit of explanation from the Minister about how he sees the system working, but we may have to return to the subject as he is slightly naïve if he thinks that the district and county councils will always work seamlessly together. Only last year, Shropshire county council and South Shropshire district council had one hell of a fight over their alternative proposals in Craven Arms in my constituency. The Secretary of State ended up having to sort out the mess, and the two planning departments could barely speak to each other for about two months.
 The assumption that co-operation will always happen naturally is slightly dangerous, and the Minister may find that he has to return to the matter in regulations or in some other way to ensure that district councils use the skills of the county councils and seek their assistance in developing schemes that involve services delivered by the county council. An element of the Bill has not been thought through, which is how the counties will fit into the planning process for the next decade or so before they disappear, and once again, clause 14 reveals the weakness in the Government's thinking. However, the Minister seems confident that those problems will not arise.

Tony McNulty: I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about Craven Arms. That was a specific development application and a site-specific case. I would not share his pessimism or describe my view as naïve when it comes to LPAs discussing the overall planning framework with neighbouring LPAs, counties or regional bodies. There may be the odd row on specific site designations, but most bodies would work in the same strategic direction.

Matthew Green: I accept what the Minister is saying, but I still foresee circumstances in which, for example, a county council wants waste activities on a certain site while a district council wants mixed-use development. I will not go into details about the specific case in my constituency, but I can see such a dispute happening again, which could cause problems in the relationship between two planning departments for some time.
 I am conscious of time, and given the Minister's confidence that all will be sweetness and light and that there will be no problems between district and county councils, I am prepared to leave it to him at the moment. I suspect that we may have to return to the subject, but for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to make a constructive point that could help all Committee members. I accept the reasons for grouping amendments together, but where one amendment does not relate to the clause under discussion, it would be extremely helpful if there could be some indication on the Chairman's selection list of the clause to which it does relate. For example, in the group that we have just discussed, amendments Nos. 224 and 123 would be listed under clause 14, then amendment No. 225 might appear with clause 17, to which it relates, in brackets.

Peter Pike: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he has been a Member of this House for a long time, as have I, and the amendment paper has appeared in its current format for many years. Having said that, I can make the Chairman's Panel aware of his point. Unless a consequential amendment is withdrawn, and if I am given notice, the other amendment could be moved formally and put to the vote at the appropriate time. In some cases, and depending on how closely it is linked to the lead amendment, that cannot be done because it would be pointless. However, amendments that stand alone but are linked by subject without being dependent on another amendment can be moved in that way.
 I can make the Chairman's Panel aware of the hon. Gentleman's wish and obtain the views of other members of the Chairman's Panel.

Dan Norris: I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Peter Pike: I shall now put the Question

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. This is a genuine point of order. Because of the way in which the Bill has been structured and the Government's timetable for examining the amendments, if we adjourn now we shall have no opportunity to extend the time for dealing with a further 23 and a bit clauses. We shall reconvene on Thursday, when we must adjourn at 11.25 am and return at 2.30 pm, but the guillotine on part 2 will fall at 5 pm and not at the end of that day's sitting. I shall vote against adjourning now, because—

Tony McNulty: Vote against it then.

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has made his point. I should not normally take a point of order when I have begun to put the Question. The position is clear. The programme motion was revised at the end of our sitting last Thursday and was moved and agreed first thing this morning. I stated clearly that Chairmen are always prepared to consider further changes if it is helpful in making progress and there is agreement between the Whips. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. My hon. Friend is right on the technical aspect of the timetable, but I understand that whether the Committee adjourns at 5.17 pm is a matter for your discretion. The timetable on part 1 of the Bill was severe and we were unable to consider clauses 5 to 11. If we are to have another severe timetable on part 2, everyone will wonder what this Committee is all about. The Government have not given us enough time and I am asking whether you should exercise your discretion, Mr. Pike, on whether the Committee should adjourn now.

Peter Pike: I have no discretion on whether I put the Question. When the Question has been moved, I must put it. I could allow a debate under Standing Order No. 37, but, by precedent, it must be put formally and there can be a division. I understand exactly what hon. Members are saying and explained the position in theory at our sitting last Thursday. My only power is that when the Committee decides to
 continue and the motion has not been moved, I am able to decide at what time we would take a tea break or meal break.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. This is the final point of order that I shall raise. Would the Government be prepared to withdraw the Question so that clause 14, at least, can be dispensed with?

Peter Pike: The Whip has moved the Question, so I must put it. The Minister has heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman and the Government could vote against the Question. I shall now put the Question.
 Question put, That further consideration be now adjourned:
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Five o'clock till five minutes to Nine o'clock on Thursday 16 January.